Getting "Pozzed"

[NemoAlia]

A few nights ago, I discovered a trend I'd never heard of before: I heard that in the gay (male) community (I'm not sure about gay women) some folks seem to think it's a sign of dedication to the lifestyle to become HIV positive. Apparently there are even cruises where non-infected people go to expose themselves to this nasty virus. As I would imagine, this seems to have caused quite an uproar. What gives?

 

[Queersetti]

I'm sure there are some nuts who think being HIV positive is some sort of badge of honor, but the idea that there are people, and in particular, organizations, dedicated to spreading the disease sounds like a particularly pernicious urban legend to me.

There are social groups and events specifically tailored to those who are HIV positive, and perhaps that causes some confusion.

 

[glamorilla]

i've never heard of such a thing.

 

[ithaqua]

EEK Gads!
Could you post a reference, I have had no luck in searching the web for any reference to this.

There are "Gay" cruises, bath house closings, but nothing on people intentionally getting HIV.

Va. House Votes Penalty for Intentional AIDS Spread

Washington Times (02/03/00) P. C3
The Virginia House of Delegates passed a law on Wednesday that makes it a misdemeanor for an individual to knowingly spread HIV. The bill, sponsored by Delegate Roger McClure (R-Fairfax), exempts an infected person who tells his sex partner he or she is HIV-positive. Prompted by the case of a man who knowingly infected 28 women with HIV, the measure now goes to the Virginia Senate for approval. Critics noted that the bill could keep some people from being tested for HIV, for fear of later being sent to prison for having intercourse.

 

[NemoAlia]

By doing a google search for "bug chasers" I found a bunch of links. "Bug chasers" is a nickname for HIV-negative men who find HIV-positive partners in order to contract HIV. Here are a few links, but there are definitely a bunch more out there.

http://www.rollingstone.com/features/featuregen.asp?pid=1525

http://www.komotv.com/stories/25009.htm

http://www.heroichomosex.com/crw/frot/bugchasers.html

http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/884/884_chasers.asp

 

[Queersetti]

By doing a google search for "bug chasers" I found a bunch of links. "Bug chasers" is a nickname for HIV-negative men who find HIV-positive partners in order to contract HIV. Here are a few links, but there are definitely a bunch more out there.

http://www.rollingstone.com/features/featuregen.asp?pid=1525

http://www.komotv.com/stories/25009.htm

http://www.heroichomosex.com/crw/frot/bugchasers.html

http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/884/884_chasers.asp

I read all four of your links, thank you for posting them.

I think this is rather sensationalized, and careful reading shows that two of those sites refer back to the same Rolling Stone article as source material. Also, for the record, the "Man To Man Alliance" believes that there is no such thing as same sex, and that anyone who engages in anal sex, protected or not, is participating in dangerous practices.

There are certainly self destructive people in every lifestyle. However, not every stupid gay man, or careless gay man, is a "bug chaser". I didn't find the evidence that this is a widespread phenomenon very convincing.

 

[Rhys]

EEK Gads!
Could you post a reference, I have had no luck in searching the web for any reference to this.

There are "Gay" cruises, bath house closings, but nothing on people intentionally getting HIV.

Va. House Votes Penalty for Intentional AIDS Spread

Washington Times (02/03/00) P. C3
The Virginia House of Delegates passed a law on Wednesday that makes it a misdemeanor for an individual to knowingly spread HIV. The bill, sponsored by Delegate Roger McClure (R-Fairfax), exempts an infected person who tells his sex partner he or she is HIV-positive. Prompted by the case of a man who knowingly infected 28 women with HIV, the measure now goes to the Virginia Senate for approval. Critics noted that the bill could keep some people from being tested for HIV, for fear of later being sent to prison for having intercourse.

It is a felony in the state of Nevada

nevada revised statues 201.205
NRS 201.205 Penalty; affirmative defense.

1. A person who, after testing positive in a test approved by the state board of health for exposure to the human immunodeficiency virus and receiving actual notice of that fact, intentionally, knowingly or willfully engages in conduct in a manner that is intended or likely to transmit the disease to another person is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 2 years and a maximum term of not more than 10 years, or by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by both fine and imprisonment.


2. It is an affirmative defense to an offense charged pursuant to subsection 1 that the person who was subject to exposure to the human immunodeficiency virus as a result of the prohibited conduct:

(a) Knew the defendant was infected with the human immunodeficiency virus;

(b) Knew the conduct could result in exposure to the human immunodeficiency virus; and

(c) Consented to engage in the conduct with that knowledge.

(Added to NRS by 1993, 1943; A 1995, 1199)

 

[Rhys]

However, I once knew a guy who told me flat out that if he ever tested positive for HIV he would go out and spread it to everyone, and have sex with as many people as possible. His attitude shocked me, but I think I understand his logic. We are all going to die one way or another so have fun before you do. I thought his viewpoint rather nihilistic.

 

[NemoAlia]

It's true that a majority of the articles I found were in response to the Rolling Stone article that I made the first in my list of links. I have a feeling that this was the article that brought the phenomenon to the widely public eye.

However, none of the conversations I've had with my friends have ever referred to any article in the news. For them, it's an everyday phenomenon rather than a news story. So it seems to me that, at least for the queer community in my area, this Rolling Stone article in all its various iterations is closer to accurate than to sensationalized.

Edited to add: And I think that most of the bug chasers discussed in the articles and in my real world are self-identifying, rather than careless gay men who get mislabeled by their peers.

 

[Chicklet]

When asked whether he is prepared to live with HIV after that "erotic" moment, Carlos dismisses living with HIV as a minor annoyance. Like most bug chasers, he has the impression that the virus just isn't such a big deal anymore: "It's like living with diabetes. You take a few pills and get on with your life."

Uhm...This really disgusts me. I wouldn't want to have diabetes, either...

I feel that going out and seeking HIV to infect yourself is like a slap in the face to all the people who've died from it and all the people who will die from it. Ugh. I watched a bunch of "Pandemic Aids" on HBO this summer and it was so sad, all these people who're going to die, and here people are actually looking specifically for the disease because it's "A minor annoyance." Ha.

-Chicklet

 

[Queersetti]

It's true that a majority of the articles I found were in response to the Rolling Stone article that I made the first in my list of links. I have a feeling that this was the article that brought the phenomenon to the widely public eye.

However, none of the conversations I've had with my friends have ever referred to any article in the news. For them, it's an everyday phenomenon rather than a news story. So it seems to me that, at least for the queer community in my area, this Rolling Stone article in all its various iterations is closer to accurate than to sensationalized.

Edited to add: And I think that most of the bug chasers discussed in the articles and in my real world are self-identifying, rather than careless gay men who get mislabeled by their peers.

I find it curious that none of the gay men who have responded to this thread were aware of this "everyday phenomenon".

I don't mean to be dismissive of your views or your sources, but more than two decades of accusations that gays are deliberately spreading AIDS had left me with a high threshold of proof for such charges.

My comment about carelessness was prompted by the implication made in a couple of your referenced articles that all unprotected sex was a deliberate attempt to become infected. I am sure we can agree that some people engage in risky behaviors out of foolishness or carelessness and not deliberation.

 

[Etoile]

I'll just quote myself from last January:
Now this is fucking scary. If today were April 1st, I'd be able to laugh. gomer43 found a Rolling Stone article about bug chasers - men who intentionally seek out sex with men who are infected with HIV.

Added 26 Jan 03: Okay, I feel better. After reading a couple of articles in the New York Blade about it, I am confident the Rolling Stone article isn't 100% truthful. An article from the Advocate debunks major parts of the story, as do several other articles with similar information.

 

[Rhys]

I stopped reading Rolling Stone years ago for this very reason, actually. I have a problem with sensationalistic content, and to be honest, I am not sure which publication is more guilty of it, RS or Spin.

In a discussion with someone else last night, under Nevada law having sex with someone that knowingly has HIV is a felony. This really is an attempt to regulate the freelancing prostitutes with the disease. There is a loophole that could be exploited by "bug chasers" dealing with consent issues. In theory, if both parties consented to the act of transmission, its not a felony. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but don't all HIV positives have to report to the CDC? So, here's the scenario: A "bug chaser" and HIV positive individual agree to do whatever it takes to transmit the disease. But later, the "bug chaser" changes his/her mind and says "well he/she didn't tell me they were HIV positive". Unless there is some documented proof that BOTH parties were consenting, the HIV positive in theory could be arrested and charged with a felony. In theory, if all HIV positives have to register with the CDC, then there should be NO way to NOT know if your partner is HIV positive...(but its not really reasonable to carry a computer printout of all infected individuals in a region to a bar and check ID's either)

I want to postulate a nasty comment that RS may or may not be making. The idea is this: That gay men are deliberately and knowingly infecting themselves with the disease to take advantage of the healthcare system in our prison system. I think this idea is no less off base than anything else RS has or has not said. Without reading the article myself, and knowing that several states have laws dealing with the knowing transmission of HIV, I can only guess that this might be the subtle comment that might be being made. Or maybe not. But, its food for thought anyway.

 

[oujray]

This is Legit

This is an actual phenomenon in both the U.S. and Europe. Several years ago at a National Collegiate Speech Tournament, I saw a presentation concerning this phenomenon with several references in the final round(I believe she won this particular division)--I will try to get ahold of the girl who did this piece and get those references, but I do know it was before the Rolling Stone article. When I lived in London in 2000, I was again exposed to this phenomenon. A poz father(who happened to be gay) had bought his son(who also happened to be gay) a cruise for his 18th birthday so that he could get pozzed. A British friend of mine was also solicited by a young couple who wanted to get pozzed but lost interest when they learned he was HIV negative. The cruises are known as "Conversion Cruises." NemoAlia is right tho, these are intentional acts, not done out of carelessness. It's just taking social constructionism and semiotics a bit too far, I believe. Many of these men who intentionally choose to get "converted" to poz status feel that it makes them more queer. It's true that some of the guys doing this believe that it's easier than worrying about whether they will get it accidentally and some are just carelessly self-destructive, but the conversion cruises and parties seem to be more about the creation of a more queer community.

 

[Queersetti]

Until someone posts a link as to how one takes one of these "conversion cruises" I will continue to suspect they are a homophobic urban legend.

Here's a link to an excellent article on this subject.

Chasing The Bug Chasers

 

[Etoile]

I want to postulate a nasty comment that RS may or may not be making. The idea is this: That gay men are deliberately and knowingly infecting themselves with the disease to take advantage of the healthcare system in our prison system. I think this idea is no less off base than anything else RS has or has not said. Without reading the article myself, and knowing that several states have laws dealing with the knowing transmission of HIV, I can only guess that this might be the subtle comment that might be being made. Or maybe not. But, its food for thought anyway.

Huh, interesting. I would have thought that the person who ended up in jail would be the one who transmitted the HIV, not the person who got infected with it. As far as I know that's how the laws work - the burden of responsibility is on the person already infected to keep from infecting their partner, even if the partner claims to want to be infected.

 

[Etoile]

Until someone posts a link as to how one takes one of these "conversion cruises" I will continue to suspect they are a homophobic urban legend.

Yeah, me too. I also find it hard to believe anybody whose first post is making such a bold assertion. (This has happened before.) It just adds to my sense that the statements made are a load of crap.

 

[RooMale]

Would have thought the same .. but this is corporate USA we are talking about .. so I guess if someone says I have and the other says I know, but wtf .. that's not that far short of basic contract law .. i.e. offer to treat and acceptance .. maybe I am looking too much into UK law ..

either way .. I can see why this may happen
Roo

 

[Etoile]

A few nights ago, I discovered a trend I'd never heard of before: I heard that in the gay (male) community (I'm not sure about gay women) some folks seem to think it's a sign of dedication to the lifestyle to become HIV positive. Apparently there are even cruises where non-infected people go to expose themselves to this nasty virus. As I would imagine, this seems to have caused quite an uproar. What gives?

By the way, this is not a trend among gay women. It's a gay male thing exclusively. I have never heard of this happening among lesbians.

 

[NemoAlia]

Well, I couldn't find any links to cruises that actually advertise that neg men can be converted on board. However, there are several that advertise that they cater to the HIV-positive men, and their "friends and families." Seems like that would be as good as anything for a man who wanted to catch HIV, yes?

And may I introduce oujray, the newbie in our midst? He's the guy who first told me about all of this. He's not a regular at lit by any means, but he's been a good friend of mine for years. I asked him to pop in here to make sure I wasn't making a complete idiot out of myself, and to correct and flesh out what I was trying to say.

In the meantime, here are some more links to worthy (in my opinion) reading material:

http://www.thebody.com/sowadsky/barebacking.html

http://www.thegiftdocumentary.com/

http://www.optionsri.org/may2001/articles/status_of_the_hiv_negative_gay_m.htm

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old&section=current&issue=2003-02-01&id=2744

http://aids.about.com/library/weekly/aa070401a.htm

 

[Etoile]

And may I introduce oujray, the newbie in our midst? He's the guy who first told me about all of this. He's not a regular at lit by any means, but he's been a good friend of mine for years. I asked him to pop in here to make sure I wasn't making a complete idiot out of myself, and to correct and flesh out what I was trying to say.

Ah, okay. It definitely helps to have endorsement from a known Litster, at least in my mind. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[NemoAlia]

Hmmm... I've never thought of myself as a sponsor before... Oh the power!

 

[Rhys]

Huh, interesting. I would have thought that the person who ended up in jail would be the one who transmitted the HIV, not the person who got infected with it. As far as I know that's how the laws work - the burden of responsibility is on the person already infected to keep from infecting their partner, even if the partner claims to want to be infected.

Etoile...that is exactly my point, under Nevada law, the person transmitting the disease, not the transmitee, would be jailed. But, it also stands to reason, that the transmittee, would then find a candidate also wanting to be "pozzed" and become a transmitter himself. If you play the "I didn't know, he didn't tell me" card then through the loophole created by the felony charge the Transmitter is going to be getting healthcare through the prison system for ever long he is jailed. Now the infected person, the transmittee, can do the same thing, provided that the laws don't change or there is some special healthcare regulations in the state of Nevada dealing with HIV infected prisoners.

So the "problem" and I stick that in quotes because this is all a hypothetical situation, is one of intent. If both parties consent to "pozzing" then no felony has been committed. If there is real and incontrovertable proof that an agreement to poz was made between the parties then there is no felony. But in absence of something like that (and each state would have to make up its mind what it will accept as real and incontrovertable proof) how do you know that a felony was not committed. The conservative agenda then also could have a field day with this, "urban legend" , because it paints the gay male as deliberately transmitting a fatal disease AND taking advantage of tax dollars spent in the federal prision healthcare system to treat them of a disease that they deliberately contracted. The argument could also be used by right wing conservatives to further demonstrate that HIV is a gay disease, and not something that god fearing monogamous folks ever need worry about.

The thing that worries me most is not the spread of HIV, although that does frighten me. What really scares me is the spread of ignorance and legend about HIV. I do not doubt that "pozzing" exists because history shows us that there is always a group out there that wants to be hip, and in this case, tragically so.

 

[NemoAlia]

Now, I'm not a conservative white male, and I never will be. But to me it seems indisputable that these stories about bug chasers and gift givers and such do obviously not represent the gay community as a whole. No more than middle management types who jump off the tops of buildings represent conservative white males as a whole.

It's scary that the gay community's reputation is so fragile in the eyes of those who are in power that it could so easily be shattered by one or two horror stories from the minority.

 

[Rhys]

It's scary that the gay community's reputation is so fragile in the eyes of those who are in power that it could so easily be shattered by one or two horror stories from the minority.

Case in point. Nevada voted down same sex marriages. Now, if you are familiar with Las Vegas at all you know about our numerous wedding chapels. It would make perfect sense, and in fact would go right along with our freewheeling reputation, to legalise same sex marriages, perform them here (tax the shit out of them) and recognise them if they were performed elsewhere. However, the "Protect Marriage" act passed last year making all forms of same sex marriage illegal here. This measure passed because of the absolute hysteria stirred up by the conservative elements in this state (and please don't kid yourselves...Nevada is very very right wing) when it was suggested that Canada "might" be thinking of legalising it. Now quite frankly, I don't know how many gay couples were thinking of getting married in Canada then moving to Las Vegas but that is literally what they wanted to forestall. I suspect that very few couples would want to get married in Canada then move here but that's all it took was the very suggestion. Conservatives are scared of the gay minority and that is really clear in this state. I suggest to gay activists that they seriously downplay this "urban legend" and try to educate those into deliberate pozzing that this will not help with social acceptance.

I also disclaimer my posts in this thread. I postulate theories only mixed with what fact I have.